In By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, Charles Murray’s insightful book on the decline of the American constitutional order, the renowned social scientist shares a striking anecdote that now seems quite prescient:
A former member of the US Attorney’s Office in New York has written about a popular training exercise among the staff: Name a famous person and then tell the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime that could be pinned on him. The junior prosecutors win the game by finding the most obscure offense that fits the character of the celebrity and carries the toughest sentences.
Murray further observes that this isn’t just a game — there are numerous instances where prosecutorial discretion is indistinguishable from lawlessness, especially in high-profile cases involving celebrities. In the notorious case of financier Michael Milken:
The judge dismissed the only substantive criminal charge, insider trading, leaving charges of violating financial regulations which, as the prosecutor in the case later acknowledged, amounted to “criminalizing technical offenses.” The regulations in question hadn’t been previously charged as crimes, nor have they been charged as crimes since.
By the People was published nine years ago, and with the Trump conviction in New York, we may have just witnessed a peak in the misuse of prosecutorial discretion. It’s not merely that a former president — and the top contender for the next presidency — has been convicted of a felony on debatable and untested charges.
Despite the demands to respect the “rule of law” following Trump’s verdict, it has become evident that prosecuting corruption isn’t about law or principle — it’s about gatekeeping. Those favored by entrenched institutions evade consequences, while those who challenge unaccountable power face prosecution.
The Washington establishment remains focused on Trump, hoping to detract attention from the broader corruption that threatens the country more significantly than misclassifying a payment to a mistress as “legal services.”
To comprehend how skewed the system has become, it’s useful to compare Trump’s court battles to those of his political peers.
Donald Trump Paid ‘Hush Money’ to a Woman to Influence an Election!
Understanding the convoluted and unprecedented legal theories leading to Trump’s recent felony conviction is challenging. In summary, the New York district attorney charged Trump with inaccurately classifying a payment to silence his alleged affair with a porn star as “legal services” — typically a misdemeanor. This was escalated to a felony because it was allegedly done in furtherance of a second crime, purportedly violating federal election law to influence the election.
However, how does this reconcile with Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party in 2016 hiring a foreign spy to create a false dossier, claiming Trump was a Russian agent, while concealing the partisan source of the report? Clinton’s campaign and the DNC were fined $113,000 for mislabeling the Steele dossier as a legal expense — the same predicate for Trump’s charge. Unlike Trump, the dossier was certainly intended to influence the election.
The argument that Trump’s hush money was meant to influence the election is absurd — leading campaign finance expert Bradley Smith asserts Trump’s payment didn’t breach federal election law. (Judge Merchan, overseeing the trial, did not allow Smith to testify for Trump’s defense.)
Additionally, as Matt Taibbi notes, the fraudulent Steele dossier initiated a barrage of investigations into Trump, culminating in the Mueller probe.
“Joe Biden’s post-verdict address insisted ‘this is a state case, not a federal case,’ omitting the detail that original evidence came from an FBI raid after Special Counsel Robert Mueller referred it to the Southern District of New York. Mueller’s probe stemmed from the FBI’s dubious Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” Taibbi notes. Thus, this entire case against Trump is rooted in Clinton’s false dossier from the 2016 election.
New York prosecutors could have charged Clinton with a more severe version of Trump’s crime, yet she paid a nominal fine, while Trump is a convicted felon.
Donald Trump Was Convicted of Sexual Assault!
It’s difficult to begin other than stating that many Americans wish to be led by moral, respectable individuals. As unpleasant as defending Trump on these matters may be, given his public history with women, it is notable that Trump was convicted of sexual assault in a case financially supported by his political adversaries and publicly orchestrated by prominent “resistance” members — only materialized after the New York Legislature passed a law to revive the expired statute of limitations specifically to sue Trump.
Even then, the conviction was in civil court, despite the accuser not recalling when the alleged assault occurred. Despite media misreporting as “liable for rape,” the jury only found Trump guilty of the vague crime of “sexual assault,” potentially just unwanted touching.
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, who participated in multiple recent fundraisers with Biden, has been identified by Virginia Giuffre, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein, as having been at Epstein’s private island. She testified seeing Clinton on the island with “two young girls” from New York.
Another Epstein victim claimed Epstein said “Clinton likes them young.” Despite this and other questionable sexual incidents, including Paula Jones and Lewinsky, along with perjury attempts to conceal evidence, law enforcement has notoriously avoided prosecuting Epstein’s associates.
Federal law enforcement also explored charging Hunter Biden with sex-trafficking crimes for working with traffickers and transporting prostitutes interstate. Yet no charges were brought. Instead, his father’s DOJ attempted an extraordinary immunity deal to dismiss any significant sex crimes and let the statute of limitations on his tax crimes expire, while persecuting IRS whistleblowers for exposing it. (Other serious allegations, like money laundering and acting as an unregistered foreign agent, are also neglected.)
Discussing the outrageous Kavanaugh accusations or sexual assault allegations against Biden himself, equal in credibility to Trump’s charges, seems moot. There’s no principle in concerns about political figures’ alleged abuse of women. When establishment favors you, it appears they let you get away with it.
Trump Illegally Retained Classified Records!
Trump’s classified documents case at Mar-A-Lago is closest to a conventional legal matter. However, it’s aggressively prosecuted with novel legal tactics to expedite a conviction before the election. Leaks misrepresented the seriousness of the national security threat. The judge, with the prosecution’s own blunders like messing up the chain of custody, has prevented it from spiraling or rushing. But the political motivations are undeniable — they aim for a conviction to sway the election.
Meanwhile, we’re still grappling with Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server as Secretary of State, containing top-secret info. The FBI assessed that hostile actors may have accessed her email. When this became a problem, she destroyed evidence. James Comey admitted her wrongdoing but announced no charges.
Similarly, Biden was found with classified documents going back decades, even from his Senate days, sharing them with outsiders like his ghostwriter. Yet, the DOJ chose not to charge him, citing his sympathetic presentation and poor memory as reasons.
When three politicians commit similar crimes but only one is prosecuted — while acknowledging others committed the same (or worse) crimes without charges — what does that indicate? Notably, Trump publicly declined to pursue charges against Clinton after defeating her because he knew “it would be very, very divisive.”
Donald Trump Is a Corrupt Businessman!
Recall that Trump, a real estate mogul, was ordered to pay a $454 million bond for fraud earlier this year (later reduced to $175 million). His crime? Applying for and repaying a bank loan with interest, with everyone profiting. The supposed offense was inflating asset values on loan paperwork, despite the bank’s thorough due diligence. Even media couldn’t justify this judgment: “An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of similar cases showed Trump’s case stands apart: It’s the only big business found threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.”
Consider other politicians’ real estate deals. Barack Obama’s Chicago home purchase was possible because developer Tony Rezko bought the adjoining property, hiding this under his wife’s name. Rezko later went to jail for corruption involving Illinois politicians.
There’s also the Whitewater controversy in Arkansas, a failed land deal. The Clintons’ partners, Jim and Susan McDougal, went to jail, as did Governor Jim Guy Tucker. Clinton was accused of pressuring a failing savings and loan for a $300,000 loan to fund the deal. Although the Clintons were not charged, Susan McDougal spent 18 months in prison for contempt, refusing questions about it. Conveniently, she was pardoned by Clinton on his way out of office.
Which of these real estate deals is most suspect as a criminal matter, let alone deserving a $454 fraud judgment?
Follow the Money
For politicians and money, consider why leaders like Obama and the Clintons are worth hundreds of millions of dollars from their political careers. What did they do to earn this? Why is Nancy Pelosi one of the best stock traders in America?
Trump’s business acumen aside, his wealth roots from inheritance. Yet, corporate interests don’t pay politicians extravagant fees for speeches or foundations out of counsel value — it’s for future favors.
America’s government system is designed for exploitation by a few for money and power. Even with the worst view of Trump’s personal motives, his corruption threat is insignificant compared to the system’s corruption he disrupts. His presidency threatens D.C. insiders benefiting from advancing unpopular agendas and looting the treasury.
Consider why many politicians aren’t held accountable. Are we to believe the Clintons avoided charges because their public service isn’t marred by scandal? Does Biden’s involvement with his son’s dubious business partners, whose laundered money ended in Biden family accounts, carry no personal benefit to him? Doesn’t Nancy Pelosi’s $100 million net worth from timely stock trades raise concerns?
You’ll hear much about Trump’s felony status before November. But question why the clear corruption of other prominent politicians is largely ignored.
